What new spending reductions could mean for DECC
Executive summary
The UK’s plans to reduce government spending seem modest: pre-election Conservative Party pledges amount to a 3.3 per cent reduction over the course of the parliament. But this headline figure obscures essential details, including commitments to ring-fence some areas of spending, grow capital investment and shrink spending
early on before allowing it to rise late in the parliament. This analysis outlines how the Department for Energy and Climate Change’s (DECC’s) budget is likely to be affected by the spending reductions. It identifies the factors which will concentrate spending reductions onto DECC’s low carbon activities, and especially onto its relatively modest staff budget.
This unusual, but dramatic, ring-fencing effect could reduce DECC’s resource spending by as much as 90 per cent by 2018-19, curtailing the department’s ability to make sure the UK has secure, clean, affordable energy supplies and promote international action to mitigate climate change.
How budget reduction plans progressively reduce DECC’s spending Reductions to DECC’s total budget after five years DECC budget 2015
Reduced spending across government by 2020
-3.3%
Single year reductions, showing the ‘roller coaster’ effect Reduction once health, development and education budgets are ring-fenced
-11.6%
The ‘roller coaster’ effect of rapid spending reductions
-17.9% in 2018-19
The effect of ring-fencing DECC’s nuclear and coal liabilities
-46% in 2017-18
The effect of protecting capital spending on resource expenditure
-90% in 2018-19
1
Introduction
The Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) is a small department with a big job to do. It is a sixth of the size of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, but has to help bring £100 billion of private sector investment into the UK’s electricity system by 2020. It has to foster innovation, energy saving and competition to minimise the cost of low carbon energy to consumers. It is also charged with supporting the prime minister in achieving an ambitious global climate deal in December this year. To achieve these aims, DECC has four tools: a budget of close to £4 billion per annum; 1,500 staff; existing and new policy; and consumer levies, used to incentivise energy efficiency and low
carbon energy supply. The last two of these tools are the most important, since they drive citizen behaviour and private sector investment expectations. However, they can’t work without the first two, which are the subject of this analysis. In the run up to the UK’s general election, the political parties pledged to reduce the budget deficit quickly, to protect capital expenditure, and to ring-fence certain lines of expenditure. This analysis identifies what Conservative spending pledges might mean for DECC’s budget in light of these aims.
2
What affects DECC’s budget?
Departmental ring-fencing Under Conservative plans, departmental spending across government is expected to be reduced by 3.3 per cent between 2014-15 and 2019-20. However, pledges to ring-fence the health, international development and education budgets mean that departments like DECC will be required to reduce their budgets further: by an average of 11.6 per cent over the course of this parliament.
Ring-fencing within DECC Nearly three quarters of DECC’s Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) budget is spent on four activities which are likely to be ring-fenced within the department: the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, international development assistance, Regional Development Agency wind-up costs and coal liabilities. If these are protected, spending reductions will have to be found from DECC’s other activities.
But this is not the whole story. Three additional factors constrain DECC’s funding:
Protecting capital spending Within DEL spending, the government is maintaining capital DEL spending by reducing resource DEL spending. Over 60 per cent of DECC’s budget is capital expenditure, meaning reductions will be concentrated on resource expenditure.
The budget profile The ‘roller coaster’ profile of proposed spending plans, identified by the Institute for Fiscal Studies in its April 2015 report Post-election austerity: parties’ plans compared, means that government spending will fall rapidly and then recover. As a result, major programmes may be squeezed for the majority of the parliament, even if spending levels rise in its last year.
3
The roller coaster effect and its implications
DECC’s implied non ring-fenced spending
The chart on the right shows DECC’s non ring-fenced spending, based on the Conservative Party’s pre-election proposals. It focuses on DEL, as this is the measure decided in spending reviews.
0.7
0.6
Under Conservative plans, spending should fall by 46 per cent in 2017-18, before rising by 87 per cent over the following two years. This roller coaster effect means that DECC may cancel or defer spending until late in the parliament.
0.5
0.4
-46%
£bn 0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0 2014-15
2015-16
2016-17
2017-18
2018-19
2019-20
4
How ring-fencing within DECC might affect its priorities
Here, we show the total spending reductions for DECC, implied by spending plans, between 2015 and 2020, set against DECC’s expected programme costs over the same period. DECC’s spending is shown separated into major low carbon programmes and other spending outside the ring-fence; and unofficially and officially ring-fenced spending. These latter two categories represent over three quarters of DECC’s spending, and largely cover unavoidable clean up costs for old coal and nuclear projects.
Expected DECC 2015-20 programme costs Low carbon non ring-fenced DECC spending: £2.2bn Other non ring-fenced DECC spending: £1.3bn
Carbon capture and storage
£0.9bn
-£0.8bn
Green Deal
£0.6bn
Science and innovation
Unofficially ring-fenced DECC spending: £1.6bn
£0.5bn
Electricity Smart meters market reform Other staff and administration
£0.6bn
Nuclear liabilities
£1.2bn
Other low carbon
Other energy resource and capital spend
£0.6bn Fuel poverty
Officially ring-fenced DECC spending: £14.7bn
Implied DECC spending reductions
Other
Concessionary Fuel Allowance
Coal Authority
Mainly Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and international climate finance commitments
5
If savings over the next five years were found from areas that have not been ring-fenced, spending on them would fall by a quarter. But the ‘roller coaster’ profile of reductions means that available funds would, in fact, fall by nearly half by 2017-18, before rebounding.
Low carbon non ring-fenced DECC spending: £2.2bn
Carbon capture and storage £0.9bn
Green Deal Spending reductions £0.6bn -£0.8bn
Science and innovation £0.5bn
This could mean limiting the UK to a single carbon capture and storage (CCS) demonstration project, while largely ending energy efficiency spending; or it could mean stopping electricity market reform (EMR), smart metering, innovation activities and their associated staffing.
Electricity market reform £0.1bn Other non ring-fenced DECC spending: £1.3bn
Other staff and administration £0.6bn
Smart meters £0.1bn
Other low carbon £0.15bn
Other energy resource and capital spend £0.6bn
Fuel poverty £0.1bn
Other £0.1bn
6
The consequences of protecting capital spending
DECC’s non ring-fenced resource spending
There is a further factor affecting spending reductions. Across government, resource (or non-investment) spending is being more heavily restricted to protect capital (or investment) spending. For departments, like DECC, with a high proportion of capital spending, this means spending reductions will be concentrated on their resource spending. In DECC’s case, its resource spending (35-40 per cent of its total DEL) could fall by 90 per cent by 2018-19.
0.4
0.3
As a result, the following large resource spending programmes are likely to be targeted: • Departmental administration, staff costs
£bn
0.2
and payments to Ofgem
• Science and innovation and the Big Energy
Savings Network
• Electricity market reform
0.1
• Smart meters
-90%
0.0 2014-15
2015-16
2016-17
2017-18
2018-19
2019-20
7
Conclusion
Over the next five years, we estimate that DECC will need to spend £19.8 billion to meet its commitments. Of this, £16.3 billion is officially or unofficially ring-fenced for legacy costs. Just £3.5 billion is not ring-fenced and available to deliver the UK’s energy transition: ie around £700 million per year on average. However, the roller coaster spending profile of the next parliament means that DECC could have just £350 million for all non ring-fenced activity in 2017-18, compromising major DECC programmes. And, because of commitments to preserve capital spending, by 2018-19 only £40 million would be available for all staffing, analysis and policy implementation functions.
Budgets will be tight, but decision makers have options. For example, cutting CCS capital grants means UK CCS simply will not happen. In contrast, energy efficiency outcomes can be delivered with less direct spending, through smart regulation and by enabling efficiency to compete with new supply. Similarly, if savings are available from ring-fenced areas, this could free up expenditure for other areas. The main conclusion, however, is clear: DECC needs a better than average budget settlement because most of its spending is ring-fenced and capital intensive. Without it, the department will struggle to achieve its mission and the UK is much less likely to have secure, clean and affordable energy.
Reductions in spending on staff could be a false economy. DECC steers the use of consumer levies that are much larger than its own budget. A dumbed down DECC, unable to spend its own budget wisely on analysis, energy efficiency and strategy, might overspend on levy-funded low carbon generation, driving up the cost of decarbonisation. 8
Green Alliance Green Alliance is a charity and independent think tank focused on ambitious leadership for the environment. We have a track record of over 35 years, working with the most influential leaders from the NGO, business, and political communities. Our work generates new thinking and dialogue, and has increased political action and support for environmental solutions in the UK. Author: Dustin Benton and Emily Coats Acknowledgements Thanks to Soumaya Keynes at the Institute of Fiscal Studies. Green Alliance 36 Buckingham Palace Road, London, SW1W 0RE 020 7233 7433 ga@green-alliance.org.uk www.green-alliance.org.uk blog: greenallianceblog.org.uk twitter: @GreenAllianceUK The Green Alliance Trust is a registered charity 1045395 and company limited by guarantee (England and Wales) 3037633, registered at the above address Published by Green Alliance, July 2015 Designed by Howdy ISBN: 978-1-909980-50-1
Š Green Alliance, 2015 Green Alliance’s work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No derivative works 3.0 unported licence. This does not replace copyright but gives certain rights without having to ask Green Alliance for permission. Under this licence, our work may be shared freely. This provides the freedom to copy, distribute and transmit this work on to others, provided Green Alliance is credited as the author and text is unaltered. This work must not be resold or used for commercial purposes. These conditions can be waived under certain circumstances with the written permission of Green Alliance. For more information about this licence go to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/